A new meaning to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?”
The West is thoroughly industrial and modern. As a result, we have access to unimaginable luxury and leisure. Even our “poor” are immeasurably well off compared to the standards of the world. The West, needless to say, leads the world in standard of living. Except for one thing. Happiness and spiritual wellbeing. Birthrates are declining, religion is fading, and a sense of organic community is disappearing. Hedonism has replaced virtue it seems. We are overly medicated, depressed, bulimic and obese. Apparently, the West is a peculiar place.
Too strong of an indictment? Maybe so but there is some evidence that materialism and the access to more stuff leaves us feeling empty. Searching for something; anything, to fill a void, we wind up becoming a slave to modern devices and our property.
I don’t agree with everything in this article but it is well worth the read in light of the things mentioned.
The case against making increased GDP per capita the overriding policy objective is that it doesn’t deliver the increased happiness or welfare if promises. In 1974, the economist Richard Easterlin published a famous paper, “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot?”. The answer, he concluded, after correlating per capita incomes and self-reported happiness levels across a number of countries is probably “no”. In a refinement dating from 1995, Easterlin found no relationship between income and happiness above an average per capita income level of between $15,000 and $20,000. Other findings confirm Easterlin. Data from the UK show that from 1973 to 2009, there was a continuous rise in GDP per head, but no increase in reported life-satisfaction. What is more, some of the “happiest” countries are also the poorest. However, inequality within countries does matter for happiness: the rich in the UK are on the whole happier than the poor.
Why, above a quite low income threshold, does a person’s happiness not increase with more income? The intuitive explanation must be that rising incomes produce dissatisfactions which offset the pleasure which the increase affords. Turner discusses some of the ills of wealth. The richer societies are, the more “status” goods people want, but because status is relative there is never, so to speak, enough of it to go round. The same is true of “positional” goods. “If the supply of pleasant homes is restricted then you have to seek to win in the relative income competition.” But there are only a few winners. Growth in wealth also worsens the environment, thus degrading the benefits it seems to make more generally available.
The context I generally hear this kind of ridiculous argument from is leftists who previously had been singing the praises of getting more money, medical treatment, education, and the like when they weren’t in power. Once in power they of course can’t provide these things so they denounce any income above subsistence and praise the wonders of universal poverty as an antidote to whatever evils may have been present among free people. Could any argument be more transparently anti-human?
Brian,
That is the part I disagreed with the article. I understand and agree with your position. I was addressing the phenomenon of the problems industrialized nations tend to have. Its as if since we can afford to have problems, we seem to have more of them.
Sounds like an arguement for wealth distribution.
“Why, above a quite low income threshold, does a person’s happiness not increase with more income?”
How can anyone know that for a fact? How van anyone know what happiness is for another? It would be hard to deny that the poor in the developed nations to not libe a much better lives than the poor of undeveloped nations. Happiness is an elusive term.
I remember seeing a Time pictorial not so long ago about student riots in the U.K.. One photo depicted a male student smashing the window of a local shop and was quite angry…all while wearing his Ralph Lauren Polo branded shirt. No one likes a whining fashionista!
Still, I think, is indicative of what the article is saying; that wealth in and of itself does not create happiness. Key to that phrase is ‘in and of itself’. Happiness derived from a sense of self. Money can’t buy it.
I remember Paul Stanley of Kiss once saying, “All having money does is allow you to forget out money.”
The rest is up to you.
The thing about the remainder of the article writer’s point is that money doesn’t buy happiness. That such a thing (money and happiness) would be studied is fairly arbitrary. Understanding that you, Jason, don’t endorse all aspects of the article, this isn’t about your point but to the original article; by simply studying about money and happiness, the implication is that money was to have assumed to buy happiness. Despite the long standing cliche.
If you’re unhappy before money, you will be unhappy (but) with money if you start making some in your days.
Money is not the factor it is ‘you’.
very well put. I do not in any sense advocate socialism, or criticize capitalism, nor do I deny the great benefits its given the world. My point is some of the peculiar trends that seem to afflict American, Canada, Western Europe and Japan more than other nations. Just do some searches on suicide rates, behavior disorders, etc. That more than anything was the point I was trying to make.